The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jujutacular ^talk 11:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HotPads.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:WEB extremely low sourcing what so ever and none found through Gnews The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I nearly nominated this myself last night; the only reason for not doing so was the age of the article caused me to pause. It reads like advertising to me and per WP:ORG doesn't appear to meet notability critertia. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The press page (http://hotpads.com/pages/press/recentNews.htm) has links to recent articles from the AP, NYT and Fast Company which establish notability. Previous versions (such as 28-dec-2010) did not read like an advertisement. I will revert changes and watch for spammy updates. --Matthew Komorowski (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That still reads like an advert and the companies press releases do not establish notability. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Hmm. Poor article that appears to have been used for advertising, but this and this are definitely reliable and, depending on interpretation, significant enough to meet WP:WEB. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable website and WP is not a directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. HotPads.com receives a feature in the Washington Post by Andrea Caumont. The nontrivial coverage in this article from USA Today goes beyond a directory listing in that HotPads.com receives scholarly analysis:

  Pros: This is where to begin if you're starting from a premise as broad as "rent or buy." In addition to a search that shows sale and rental properties together by monthly payment, it has a "rent ratio heat map." This shows the areas that are better to buy in, vs. those where it's more practical to rent, according to the price-to-rent ratios (an affordability calculation arrived at by dividing the price to buy a house by the annual cost of renting a similar house). There's also a map of homes in foreclosure and listings for those properties.
  Cons: Some rogue listings mistakenly appear in the wrong place — for example, a listing on a Washington, D.C., map was actually for a property in Oak Harbor, Wash.; a rental in Upper Manhattan was actually for a property in West New York, N.J.

  These two sourcs are enough to establish notability. However, there are more references, all of which are already present in the Wikipedia article. See this article from Washington Business Journal (titled "HotPads gets new digs, plus a cool $2M in funding") and this article from TechJournal South. Significant coverage in four independent reliable sources, two of which are from indubitably major publications, substantiates the fact that notability per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (web) is fully established. Cunard (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.